why are we wasting time in iraq

[Gunner13]

Now the inspection teams didnt say that Iraq was in compliance they said that there was no evidence that they werent and requested more time to complete the job.

Nope, Saddam was not in compliance and how much more time would they need? They already had YEARS to accomplish their mission and failed to do so because, in my view, of constant and systematic obstruction by Saddam. Nor do I think they pushed things as hard as they should have.

Saddam was clearly NOT in compliance with the UNSCRs, even the Oil for Food ones. While admittedly not as critical as the other resolutions, Saddam's actions still represent a flouting of the UNSC and were his tool to spread his influence and rearm.

I believe that the final report on this program will show it was mismanaged and bent into a pretzel to suit Saddam and certain parties at the UN, in France and in Russia. I think it spells real trouble for Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin, but we will have to wait a bit.

So please understand that just because the resolution had a clause that allowed for war it didnt make war inevitable.

Now here I agree with you because armed conflict was not inevitable at all. Saddam could have stopped the whole thing by full complicance with UNSCR 1441 and revealing that he really didn't have anything to hide (or did he? Perhaps he thought he did or needed to maintain the illusion that he had WMDs hidden away). The only other option was to tighten the sanctions again, but they were already breaking down courtesy of the subversion of the Oil for Food Program and the behavior of parties in France and Russia.

I agree this is silly, but the ones who made it silly were the "professional diplomates" at the UN

I'm the only one who could provide a list of the resolutions? That's very sad and embrassing . You just can't have a rational discussion without facts and it only took me 20 minutes to find them and cut and paste them into my response (have to love Ask Jeeves! 8) ).

 

[MontyB]

Nope, Saddam was not in compliance and how much more time would they need? They already had YEARS to accomplish their mission and failed to do so because, in my view, of constant and systematic obstruction by Saddam. Nor do I think they pushed things as hard as they should have.

In the early stages (1996-1999) I agree with you but it wasnt until resolution 1441 that there was any threat made if Iraq didnt comply and even that was rather an ambiguous one.
I am not sure how much time Hans Blix asked for it was either 6 weeks or 6 months but either way he believed he could finish the job to my mind should have been allowed to finish the job.

I believe that the final report on this program will show it was mismanaged and bent into a pretzel to suit Saddam and certain parties at the UN, in France and in Russia. I think it spells real trouble for Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin, but we will have to wait a bit.

I dont deny that these countries were in it for their own ends but I think you need to be a little more realistic and say that so was the US and to be perfectly honest I really dont think the US gives a flying monkeys about Iraqi freedom or world security when it comes to their own interests.

Now here I agree with you because armed conflict was not inevitable at all. Saddam could have stopped the whole thing by full complicance with UNSCR 1441 and revealing that he really didn't have anything to hide (or did he? Perhaps he thought he did or needed to maintain the illusion that he had WMDs hidden away).

Umm he effectively did comply with 1441 post war discoveries or lack of them have proven that and they did say time and again that they had no WMDs the reality of all this is that by November 2002 war was going to happen regardless of what Hussein did simply because the whole process had broken down into a schoolyard squabble between the US and France/Germany, like I said previously both sides had cleverly painted themselves into a corner leaving no room to stop the process that was evolving.

I agree this is silly, but the ones who made it silly were the "professional diplomates" at the UN

This comment was directed at those on this board who seem to think that because 1441 had a "war" clause it had to be used because it was the "manly" thing to do.

From my point of view (which is clearly biased in favour of the UN) it was the responsibility of the US and its allies to prove that Iraq was not complying with 1441 to the world in general ie the UN they failed to do so and embarked on a war which now with the benefit of hindsight has validated the UNs stance so I struggle understand the repeated UN bashing that goes on here.

 

[Gunner13]

I am not sure how much time Hans Blix asked for it was either 6 weeks or 6 months but either way he believed he could finish the job to my mind should have been allowed to finish the job.

He could have had until Doomsday and he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. The Saddam had him and his crew in a box the whole time. All the while they were rearming and rebuilding their programs.

I dont deny that these countries were in it for their own ends but I think you need to be a little more realistic and say that so was the US and to be perfectly honest I really dont think the US gives a flying monkeys about Iraqi freedom or world security when it comes to their own interests.

Oh boy, were they in it for themselves! Is the US pushing it's own national interests in Iraq? Sure we are, but we weren't participating at the national level in the shady rackets, bribery and corrupting the whole Oil for Food program. And if the US doesn't care about Iraq (or Afghanistan) or world security WHY are we still there taking casualties and trying to build democratic states :?: :?: :?: If all we cared about was the oil and wiping out the Taliban, why not grab what we "want" and leave or abandon the parts we don't :?: :?: :?:

This is not a sideshow, it's the main event. President Bush is saying and doing exactly what he said he would do. World security is at the top of the list because it does coincide with our national security and it's the right thing to do.

Umm he effectively did comply with 1441 post war discoveries or lack of them have proven that and they did say time and again that they had no WMDs the reality of all this is that by November 2002 war was going to happen regardless of what Hussein did simply because the whole process had broken down into a schoolyard squabble between the US and France/Germany, like I said previously both sides had cleverly painted themselves into a corner leaving no room to stop the process that was evolving.

Again, nope! If Saddam had opened the doors and let Blix and crew do their jobs there would have been no justification for any action. Any painting into corners was done by Saddam, France and Russia, nor was the dispute at the UN schoolyard in nature. It was pure obstructionism by two governments who did not figure out we meant what we said and stood to loose big time if the status quo was changed (not matter who it hurt or how nasty it was )

From my point of view (which is clearly biased in favor of the UN) it was the responsibility of the US and its allies to prove that Iraq was not complying with 1441 to the world in general ie the UN they failed to do so and embarked on a war which now with the benefit of hindsight has validated the UNs stance so I struggle understand the repeated UN bashing that goes on here.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and the bulk of the info we had pointed the other way. Even the UN, France and Russia were convinced of that (and they still wouldn't act!). You can be as biased as you like in favor of the UN, but face it, it’s composed of 90% invertebrates who don't want to face up to things, or back their words up when required.

I don’t want to bash the UN, I want it to work, but it has to back it’s own words up to be effective. Have things gotten any better in the Sudan for all the jawing in the UN?

 

[MontyB]

Oh boy, were they in it for themselves! Is the US pushing it's own national interests in Iraq? Sure we are, but we weren't participating at the national level in the shady rackets, bribery and corrupting the whole Oil for Food program.

Let me just quote from a BBC report:

"The US was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said.

"On occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

Here is the rest of the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm

Again, nope! If Saddam had opened the doors and let Blix and crew do their jobs there would have been no justification for any action.

Strange according to both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei inspections were going well and the Iraqis were more cooperative and forth coming than they had been in the past.

No offence here but it seems like US thinking and intelligence on the whole WMDs issue was firmly rooted in 1992 intel and not based on current information.

Any painting into corners was done by Saddam, France and Russia, nor was the dispute at the UN schoolyard in nature. It was pure obstructionism by two governments who did not figure out we meant what we said and stood to loose big time if the status quo was changed (not matter who it hurt or how nasty it was Sad )

Without the benefit of hindsight your argument could hold its ground based on the "unknown" factors but with hindsight it is very clear that Iraq was going to be invaded regardless of what they did to prevent it, the continuing effort to ignore all the prewar posturing and play down the shoddy information used to justify it doesn't change facts.

I don’t want to bash the UN, I want it to work, but it has to back it’s own words up to be effective. Have things gotten any better in the Sudan for all the jawing in the UN?

Once again I will say that the only way you would be sitting here lauding the UN is if it had rubber stamped US demands for an attack on Iraq, the fact is that if they had done that they would have been more worthless than if they hadn't.
At least now the UN has exhibited the balls to stand up and say no which is probably not to the liking of those that think the US is right regardless but I bet it makes the rest of the world a lot happier.
(Incidently do you realise that in the world outside the US few governments are attacking the UN and that includes the UK).


Unfortunately we appear to be stuck in the YES he did NO he didn't style of argument now which tends to go nowhere I kind of wish we could come up with so new evidence to disagree on.

Incidently heres something interesting
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/16/iraq.memo/index.html

 

[Gunner13]

Yes, the bit about officials the US Departments of Defense and State knowing about the illict movement of oil is very bad and someone needs to explain, and pay for, this error. However, please note that no US official seems to have profited from the transaction as far as we can tell (if anyone did, they should be charged and dismissed from the government if convicted). That is not the case in other countries where is clear that individuals DID profit.

I don't laud the UN at all as a good deal of what it does is worthless to dangerous (the Human Rights Commission was chaired by Libya in 2003!Moreover, the actions in the UNSC to get Resolution 1441 passed were long and contentious, not a rubberstamp at all. I want the UN to work because the alternative is not too good.

Why do few other countries attack the UN? Because they get what too many of them want, a place to stand, be heard and beat up on the US. When it comes down to doing anything, the UN can be pushed off into a harmless direction and ignored (Rwanda, Sudan, etc.). Ever notice that a good deal of diplomatic work on thorny issues is being done outside of the UN by groups and coalitions?

 

[MI Blues]

Getting back to WHY?

I'm going to break this down into simple words so even Saddam himself could understand it -

The US-led invasion of Iraq did not have to happen. It could have been prevented, simply, by one man taking one drastic action:

Saddam Hussein could have, and should have - once and for all - opened his borders and his facilities - WITHOUT RESTRICTION - to UN inspectors. That NEVER happened during the timeframe of April 1991 - March 2003.

Relate it this way if you must:

You are a suspect in a criminal investigation. Probable cause has been determined, and a search warrant has been issued for your home. The search warrant specifies that all areas of your home will be searched to find certain things associated with the crime. Do you (a) allow the officers to enter peacefully - under the eye of your attorney - and search the premises? Or do you (b) barricade yourself behind the locked doors, arm yourself, and dare the police to take the premises by force?

Your first choice would leave at least the impression that you felt you had nothing to hide, that you were cooperating, that you wanted the police to eliminate you as a suspect and move on in the investigation.

Your second choice - regardless of your guilt or innocence - would leave little doubt in the minds of the police (and your neighbors) that you were guilty of the crime in question.

Bottom line? On previous occasions, Saddam allowed officers to enter the home to talk to him, but when presented with the warrant, he barricaded himself inside and prepared to resist. Armed entry was the only reasonable choice left to the US and to the (gutless) UN.

 

[LIBERTY]

America: "You have two options. Option A, you give us what we want."

France, Russia, and China: "And Option B?"

America: "We take it. The choice is yours.."

:lol: Thats pretty much true!

 

[MontyB]

Re: Getting back to WHY?

I'm going to break this down into simple words so even Saddam himself could understand it -

The US-led invasion of Iraq did not have to happen. It could have been prevented, simply, by one man taking one drastic action:

Saddam Hussein could have, and should have - once and for all - opened his borders and his facilities - WITHOUT RESTRICTION - to UN inspectors. That NEVER happened during the timeframe of April 1991 - March 2003.

Relate it this way if you must:

You are a suspect in a criminal investigation. Probable cause has been determined, and a search warrant has been issued for your home. The search warrant specifies that all areas of your home will be searched to find certain things associated with the crime. Do you (a) allow the officers to enter peacefully - under the eye of your attorney - and search the premises? Or do you (b) barricade yourself behind the locked doors, arm yourself, and dare the police to take the premises by force?

Your first choice would leave at least the impression that you felt you had nothing to hide, that you were cooperating, that you wanted the police to eliminate you as a suspect and move on in the investigation.

Your second choice - regardless of your guilt or innocence - would leave little doubt in the minds of the police (and your neighbors) that you were guilty of the crime in question.

Bottom line? On previous occasions, Saddam allowed officers to enter the home to talk to him, but when presented with the warrant, he barricaded himself inside and prepared to resist. Armed entry was the only reasonable choice left to the US and to the (gutless) UN.

This is precisely why pointed out before that American views and argumants are centered on 1992 based information, according to the 2002-03 inspection teams they were given free reign with everything but his palace's, the fact is that it really didnt matter whether Iraq proved its compliance or not the US was going to attack regardless.

 

[Molly Pitcher]

Didn't Saddam have like 50 palaces?

"Oh they can't search my palaces. Store it in palace 47, Uday."

 

[MontyB]

Didn't Saddam have like 50 palaces?

"Oh they can't search my palaces. Store it in palace 47, Uday."

Regardless of how many palaces he had time has given us the answer to the WMD question.

The interesting thing is that none of the "intelligence" given to the inspection teams said said you need to check palace 47 and given that Powell spent a lot of time waffling on about absolute proof and evidence none of it seemed to pan out at either that stage nor more recently.

Basically it wouldnt have mattered whether the Iraqi's bulldozed the top 300 feet of top soil from all of Iraq into an envelope and sent it to the UN for inspections the US was going to invade.

 

[Gunner13]

OK Monty B, bottom line time here:

1. Do member nations have to comply with UNS Resolutions or not? I

2. If they do not comply, does the UN, or member nations acting on behalf of the UN, have the right to compel compliance thru sanctions, embargos or force?

3. At what point does the Un stop fooling around and act?

 

[MontyB]

OK Monty B, bottom line time here:

1. Do member nations have to comply with UNS Resolutions or not? I

2. If they do not comply, does the UN, or member nations acting on behalf of the UN, have the right to compel compliance thru sanctions, embargos or force?

3. At what point does the Un stop fooling around and act?

1) My understanding (and this could be wrong) is that no they dont have to comply with resolutions as national interests take precedent.

2) As I understand it no member nations can not enforce a UN resolution without the UN actually sanctioning it, having a threat on in a resolution does not allow nations to run around enforcing them as they see fit if this was the case Israel would be in all sorts of trouble.

3) When it sees fit to act. That usually requires a majority agreement much like the first Gulf war.

 

[MI Blues]

UN Resolutions and Enforcement

OK.. but when the UN passes a resolution and then does nothing to enforce it - the entire legitimacy of that body is called into question.

That is the reason the US took action in Iraq - because the UN would not take action to enforce its own resolutions.

IMHO - the entire process from the point of view of the Bush administration was truly to discredit the UN, with the ultimate goal of having that august body (and it's recent record of anti-US bias) disbanded or at the very least removed from US soil. Another good idea run aground in a sea of political correctness.

Note: how many resolutions have been passed against Israel? How many have been proposed, only to be vetoed by the US or Great Britain? I don't know the answer, but I'd wager that the first number is very small, while the second number would be much larger.

 

[MontyB]

Re: UN Resolutions and Enforcement

OK.. but when the UN passes a resolution and then does nothing to enforce it - the entire legitimacy of that body is called into question.

That is the reason the US took action in Iraq - because the UN would not take action to enforce its own resolutions.

Thats fine but dont pretend you have a UN mandate to take action.

IMHO - the entire process from the point of view of the Bush administration was truly to discredit the UN, with the ultimate goal of having that august body (and it's recent record of anti-US bias) disbanded or at the very least removed from US soil. Another good idea run aground in a sea of political correctness.

I am not sure the UN is discredited, when you look at it the only "anti-UN" attacks are coming from the US no one else is firing any shots.
If the US wants out of the UN by all means pull out I am sure they will try and rebuild it elsewhere or kill it completely but I personally really dont care whether the UN survives or not because I see only two options: 1) it doesnt conform to the US ideal in which case you think it is useless or 2) It does conform and still remains useless because of it.

See in the end the strength of the UN is not in some perceived military capacity but in its ability to solve problems in a fair and equitable way, the minute any one party chooses to ignore it for what ever reason it cannot suceed and it doesnt matter whether that party if Iraq, Iran, Israel or the US.

Note: how many resolutions have been passed against Israel? How many have been proposed, only to be vetoed by the US or Great Britain? I don't know the answer, but I'd wager that the first number is very small, while the second number would be much larger.

Does it matter?.
France hasnt vetoed anything yet and still they have become the target of US anti-French/German sentiment.[/quote]

I apologise for any grammar and spelling mistakes its 4:30am and I am tired.

 

[MI Blues]

(note - I haven't picked up the intricacies of pulling from previous posts to reply - control-c is my only tool for that at this point)

Quote:

IMHO - the entire process from the point of view of the Bush administration was truly to discredit the UN, with the ultimate goal of having that august body (and it's recent record of anti-US bias) disbanded or at the very least removed from US soil. Another good idea run aground in a sea of political correctness.


>I am not sure the UN is discredited, when you look at it the only "anti-UN" attacks are coming from the US no one else is firing any shots.
If the US wants out of the UN by all means pull out I am sure they will try and rebuild it elsewhere or kill it completely but I personally really dont care whether the UN survives or not because I see only two options: 1) it doesnt conform to the US ideal in which case you think it is useless or 2) It does conform and still remains useless because of it.

Yes, but the anti-US shots are coming from the third-world countries which make up the hierarchy of the current UN. As a for instance - has not Kofi Annan himself been completely discredited in the oil-for-food scandal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See in the end the strength of the UN is not in some perceived military capacity but in its ability to solve problems in a fair and equitable way, the minute any one party chooses to ignore it for what ever reason it cannot suceed and it doesnt matter whether that party if Iraq, Iran, Israel or the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When has their been a "fair and equitable solution" that did not call for the US to spend more of its gross national product rebuilding some third-world have-not or paying for some other nation to play catch-up to us? Whether the situation is war, natural disaster, disease, whatever - the international cry is that the US (not the UN) isn't doing enough. But let us actually want to have a say in what is done with our dollars and our troops - and we're suddenly the bad guys.

Remove the US military forces availability from the UN - and it will - quickly, become the same useless debating society that was the League of Nations. With out the US military, the UN is useless

 

[MontyB]

Yes, but the anti-US shots are coming from the third-world countries which make up the hierarchy of the current UN. As a for instance - has not Kofi Annan himself been completely discredited in the oil-for-food scandal?

Not that I know of, he was cleared of any wrong doing I think his son Kogo (or how ever it is spelt) was considered a more likely suspect however the only "evidence" I have seen (there is more than likely stuff I havent seen as the UN doesnt keep me in the loop. ) was that he worked for a company that was implicated in the scandal.

 

[grizzly]

:rambo:why we are in iraq when we should be in north korea. our soliders[US soliders] are in iraq training our exenemies when they could be stopping a nuclear disaster

[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

Right now we cant just totally desert Iraqi after we over threw the government. We're now resposible for the re construction of the government. Also none of the troops or the police are ready to be on their own. If we do the country will be in civil war for years and war lords will be in and out of control.

And second the US cant just say "O I think Ill attack Iraqi today maybe Korea or Iran tomarrow." If we do we'll be even more hated than we are now. I mean we're already fighting two wars. One in Iraqi and one in Afgan.

 

[MontyB]

When has their been a "fair and equitable solution" that did not call for the US to spend more of its gross national product rebuilding some third-world have-not or paying for some other nation to play catch-up to us? Whether the situation is war, natural disaster, disease, whatever - the international cry is that the US (not the UN) isn't doing enough.

To be honest I dont think you have the faintest idea how the world see's or thinks about the US believe it or not most people I know couldnt give a flying monkey's about the USA or any other country but their own so saying that the world demands the US pay for things is a nonsense.

But let us actually want to have a say in what is done with our dollars and our troops - and we're suddenly the bad guys.

The reason for this is that in most cases countries contribute to these things free of strings to give "aid" with clauses is just poor taste sort of like me giving you an gift and then reminding you of it daily after a while you will get sick of it and end up hating me.

 

[TMV]

I am not sure the UN is discredited, when you look at it the only "anti-UN" attacks are coming from the US no one else is firing any shots.
If the US wants out of the UN by all means pull out I am sure they will try and rebuild it elsewhere or kill it completely but I personally really dont care whether the UN survives or not because I see only two options: 1) it doesnt conform to the US ideal in which case you think it is useless or 2) It does conform and still remains useless because of it.

I'm going to have to disagree. The reason that the "only anti-UN attacks are coming from the US" (not true) is that the rest of the nations in the UN are either:

1. Profiting off of the corruption, like the oil-for-food program.
or
2. Need the UN for protection

And monty, you're totally wrong about the Kofi thing, he has already been exsposed when he gave his son a cushy job and by oil-for-food

 

[FRO]

Stand back, rant mode full on!

First off, yes the UN is flawed, deeply so. I would say the same about the justice system, social safety net and health care system of my native land, Canada. Does that mean I wish to destroy these systems in Canada, having nothing with which to replace them? No. I would like to see reforms.

The UN needs reforms, absolutely. The problem is that nation states act like nation states and want nothing to encroach on their sovereignty. The US is as guilty of this as any other nation. Consider the situation in Rwanda in 1993-1994 and the situation in the Sudan now.

The US did not want to get involved in Rwanda, but could not stand by while other nations did so, as this would tarnish it's self-image of the "good-guy." The US pushed for an end to the UN mission in Rwanda even though it had not been asked for troops or logistical support. The US then ignored the genocide in Rwanda, claiming it didn't know what was going on, while the Red Cross had already reported 100,000 deaths in the first two weeks. The same is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan now.

The US is not alone in turning a blind eye to the suffering in Africa. Canada's plan regarding the Sudan is pathetic, and even more pathetic is the fact it came out of domestic political machinations rather than altruistic humanitarianism. Canada also ignored its own people on the ground in Rwanda, namely Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, when he asked for more troops or at least some modicum of support.

I'm going to have to disagree. The reason that the "only anti-UN attacks are coming from the US" (not true) is that the rest of the nations in the UN are either:

1. Profiting off of the corruption, like the oil-for-food program.
or

So all 190 Member States of the United Nations (not counting the USA, with which there is 191) are profiting off the corruption of the oil-for-food program or similar scandal? I would like to see some kind of evidence for that claim.

2. Need the UN for protection

I would say that the vast majority of the other 190 Member States do not need UN protection. The most recent numbers I have seen indicate 16 peacekeeping and one political mission. That is not a very high percentage.

And monty, you're totally wrong about the Kofi thing, he has already been exsposed when he gave his son a cushy job and by oil-for-food

That is not completely true. I'm going to let Reuters tackle this one for me.

In its March 29 report on Kofi and Kojo Annan, the Volcker committee, said Mouselli and the younger Annan were trying to solicit business from Iraq under the oil-for-food program and lunched with the secretary-general in September 1998 in South Africa.

At issue is whether the secretary-general had been told about his son's intentions and whether his lawyers then convinced Mouselli to change his mind.

Mouselli at first said Annan had been told that his son was trying to do business in Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But two days later he said he could not specifically recall that Kojo had mentioned to his father visits to the Iraqi embassy in Nigeria, where the younger Annan worked.

The committee then discounted Mouselli's testimony but faulted Annan for not investigating properly a conflict-of-interest regarding his son.

Kojo was working for the Swiss inspection firm Cotecna, which received a lucrative U.N. contract for Iraq. The Volcker report said Annan had not interfered in the contract process.

Quoted from: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...95837Z_01_MOL569903_RTRUKOC_0_IRAQ-UN-USA.xml